Monday, July 30, 2007

“Ideology Matters”Senate liberals, led by New York’s Charles Schumer, are throwing down the gauntlet on judicial nominations. In a speech Friday to the American Constitution Society, Senator Schumer said that confirmation hearings had become “meaningless” and stated that the confirmation of Samuel Alito was, “Without question, my greatest regret in the 109th Congress.” Then Schumer declared, “…for the rest of this president’s term and if there is another Republican elected … let me say this: We should reverse the presumption of confirmation.”

That is a shocking challenge to the constitutional authority of the president to make judicial nominations, but at least Schumer is honest about his motivations. He went on to say, “The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito.” Why not? Because, according to Senator Schumer, “Ideology matters,” and “The burden always lies with the nominee to show that he or she is within the mainstream.” Of course, Senator Schumer gets to define what is “mainstream” and what is not.

My friends, the liberals fully understand the role the federal judiciary has assumed in recent decades, and they are prepared to do whatever it takes to preserve this bastion of raw political power. With the Supreme Court acting as an unelected, super-legislative tribunal that answers to no one, our courts have become active participants in the cultural war, a strategic ally of the Left, helping to advance and legitimize a radical agenda that could not pass any legislature. Our elected representatives did not vote to ban God from our public schools nor did they create a right to abortion-on-demand or vote to redefine the meaning of marriage. And yet for taking the slightest step back – finding that Congress can in fact prohibit a gruesome procedure that a fellow New York Democrat once decried as “infanticide” – Senator Schumer feels the Supreme Court is “dangerously out of balance.” What is “out of balance” is the view that judges are little more than political hacks who must pass a liberal ideological litmus test.

Liberal IntoleranceThe “tyrants of tolerance” are at it again. This time, MoveOn.Org and the liberal blog DailyKos.com have lined up thousands of people across the country to monitor Fox News in order to create lists of businesses and companies that run cable commercials on the Fox News Channel. Their goal is to pressure advertisers into canceling their contracts with the network, thereby depriving it of advertising revenue. For example, Home Depot has been targeted by the Sierra Club for advertising on Fox because the network has attempted to provide “fair and balanced” coverage of the global warming debate. Home Depot sells “environmentally friendly products” and the Sierra Club doesn’t believe it should be advertising on an “environmentally hostile” network. But there is nothing “fair and balanced” about the radical Left, my friends. It has tried to gag communications from grassroots groups, like American Values, under the guise of “lobbying reform.” Not content with its domination of the network news, most cable outfits and the print media, the Left is trying to gag Rush Limbaugh and conservative talk radio with the so-called “Fairness Doctrine.” Now the Left wants to shut down Fox News. And I thought being “liberal” and “progressive” meant being tolerant of other points of view!

Speaking Of “Fair And Balanced” DebateHow many times have you heard Al Gore insist that a “consensus exists among the scientific community” about global warming? Yet it is highly debatable, as are Gore’s solutions to the “crisis.” Wherever you stand on that issue, debate is good. But, increasingly, the Left is using the idea that a “consensus” exists on important issues, ranging from global warming to stem cell research, in order to bludgeon skeptics, sway public opinion and shut down debate. It’s a savvy strategy, but it is also a dishonest ploy, especially when discussing issues where we need more debate, not less.

Thursday, July 19, 2007

HOW TO START EACH DAY WITH A POSITIVE OUTLOOK 1. Open a new file in your computer. 2. Name it "Hillary Rodham Clinton" 3. Send it to the trash. 4. Empty the trash. 5. Your computer will ask, "Do you really want to get rid of 'Hillary Rodham Clinton?'" 6. Firmly and decisively click "Yes".

Feel better!

Next week we'll do Nancy Pelosi!

THE ARAB WORLDConsider the overall state of the Arab world:

*It does not produce a single manufactured product of sufficient quantity to sell on world markets,

*Arab productivity is the lowest in the world,

*It contains not a single world-class university,

*The once great tradition of Arab science has degenerated into a few research programs in the fields of chemical and biological warfare,

*No Arab state is a true democracy,

*No Arab state genuinely respects human rights,

*No Arab state hosts a responsible media,

*No Arab society fully respects the rights of women and minorities,

*No Arab government has ever accepted public responsibility for its own shortcomings.

Why and how did this happen? It's a no brainer on this one. Any society that refuses to exploit the talents and potential contributions of half of its population can't remotely hope to compete with the USA or the West in general. Worse, the virtual enslavement of women is as much a symptom of other ailments as it is a problem in and of itself. Where women are tormented by bitter old men in religious robes, there's never a meritocracy for males, either. And such societies are consistently racially and religiously bigoted. Take Pakistan: while the USA is operating at a phenomenal level of human efficiency in the 21st century, say 85%, Pakistan would likely measure in at 12 to 15%. They just keep falling comparatively farther and farther behind, they hate it, and, of course, they blame us. We're dealing with the abject and utter failure of the entire civilization of Middle Eastern Islam--not competitive in a single sphere (not even terror, since these days we're terrorizing the terrorists). It's historically unprecedented--and unspeakably dangerous.

Muslim woman being stoned to death

George W. Bush Quotes"I can you hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon!" -- George W. Bush standing in the rubble of the WTC

"Every nation in every region now has a decision to make: Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists. From this day forward, any nation that continues to harbor or support terrorism will be regarded by the United States as a hostile regime."

"States like these (Iraq, Iran, & North Korea), and their terrorist allies, constitute an axis of evil, arming to threaten the peace of the world. By seeking weapons of mass destruction, these regimes pose a grave and growing danger. They could provide these arms to terrorists, giving them the means to match their hatred. They could attack our allies or attempt to blackmail the United States. In any of these cases, the price of indifference would be catastrophic."

"As a fellow serviceman, I will always respect McCain’s service to this country and the horrors he endured as a POW. However, I will never respect the damaging decisions he has made as an elected official. There is a difference."

Monday, July 16, 2007

ON BLOGGINGThe Wall Street Journal had a fascinating article about blogging yesterday. What I found most interesting was Newt Gingrinchs' article, which quoted my favorite book (The Third Wave). Here is the main body of the article but Newt's section is listed below. Enjoy!

Newt Gingrich on the "New Political 'Prosumers'"Home Depot redefined an industry by catering to customers who preferred to fix their homes themselves rather than rely on professional repairmen. Dell Computer revolutionized the computing industry by allowing customers to design their own computers instead of purchasing the prepackaged, recommended configurations.

It may not seem obvious, but blogging is part of this same social trend. Think of blogging as a DIY movement in our always intertwined media and political culture, blurring the lines between professional producers (news organizations and politicians) and amateur consumers (citizens), creating what Alvin Toffler called "prosumers," characterized by their desire to play an active role in creating the products they consume and by their distrust of professionals who claim to know what's best.

In politics, supporters of a candidate or party are increasingly dissatisfied with simply putting up yard signs or making scripted phone calls; they want those in power to listen and respond to them as well. They also don't trust professional politicians to do what is right without constant supervision.

In many ways, these are the characteristics of any insurgent political movement, but blogging is enabling particularly rapid mobilization and organization.

We've already seen the effects on the Democratic Party. Web sites such as Daily Kos29 and MoveOn.org30 -- which I find fascinating as models of online activism -- have made it quite clear that their aim goes beyond stopping President Bush; they're also targeting leaders in their own party viewed as unresponsive to the grassroots. Sen. Joe Lieberman's primary loss is the most visible example. If Republicans remain out of step with their base for too long, expect a similar insurgency on the right.

Similarly in news, it used to be that the only way to respond to an article or editorial was to write a letter to the editor. Now anyone can be a publisher. Bloggers can critique, fact-check or applaud journalists on their own platform, as well as offer their own analysis of world events. The term MSM is a derogatory term in the blogosphere, signifying distrust of the news professional.

To succeed in this new environment, news and political organizations will need to offer products that are both highly responsive and easily customized. Balancing this pressure with the need for news organizations to remain objective and politicians to act in accordance with their leadership responsibilities in a representative democracy will be a significant challenge.

Empty Words Versus Deadly BulletsPressure continues on governments, organizations and individuals to “divest” themselves of investments in Sudan and companies that do business in Sudan. The pressure has been particularly intense in the US and Great Britain, but several European countries, Australia, and Canada also have vocal activists urging companies to divest and/or withdraw from operations in Sudan. So far 18 US states have withdrawn state funds (usually pension money) from Sudan. California and Texas are among those states – the two most populous states. As usual the academies are in the act. Dozens of universities have passed resolutions that either promise divestment or restrict the way university funds may be invested in companies doing business in Sudan. Banks are receiving increasing attention. These campaigns can add economic pressure, but mostly serve a publicity function. China, for example, gets very riled when activists suggest an Olympic boycott. China buys lots of oil from Sudan. The ultimate goal, of course, is to squeeze the Sudanese government. Meanwhile, millions of Sudanese live in Darfur and Chad refugee camps, and pro-government militia continue to loot and pillage their way across Darfur.

The Anti-Robot MovementThe U.S. Air Force is having a hard time deciding what to do with UAVs. Since combat pilots run the air force, there has always been a lot of resistance, at the very top, to buy and use UAVs. It was circumstances, more than anything else, that forced the air force to accept UAVs. The CIA got their hands on some Predator UAVs, used them successfully after September 11, 2001, armed them and used the Hellfire missiles to kill terrorists. This forced the air force to be more enthusiastic about UAVs. After much pressure from critics, the air force had finally gotten the Predator (which was based on one of many successful Israeli UAVs) in the early 1990s, and used it in the Balkans. But it was the more creative CIA use of the Predator that stirred things up. The army then adopted the Raven mini-UAV. This five pound UAV, launched by throwing it into the air, quickly became a big favorite with combat units. Over a thousand were bought. Larger UAVs (the Hunter and Shadow 200) were bought for brigade and division level operations. All of a sudden, the air force was not as needed, by the ground forces, as much as it used to be.

The air force responded to all this by demanding that the Department of Defense put it in charge of developing all new UAVs, except possibly smaller ones like the Raven. The infantry community made it known that they would not, under any circumstances, let the air force mess with their little UAVs. It was a matter of life and death for the grunts, and the air force backed off. The Department of Defense also got heat from the army, marines and navy about the proposal to let the air force have the final word on developing new UAVs. At the moment, everyone is being told to play nice, with no one in overall charge of UAV development.

Meanwhile, within the air force itself, there was growing split over how to deal with UAVs. Call it a struggle between the geeks and the pilots. The geek faction wants to move ahead at full speed, and put more effort into UAVs. The pilots were more reluctant. The result is a slow and muddled effort to get UAVs into action. For example, there were many operational problems with the Predator, which led to a high attrition rate (about a third of Predators lost, mostly to operational problems, in the first decade of use.) An example of that was the wing icing problems in the Balkans, that brought down many Predators. The air force was aware of wing icing over 70 years ago, and had ways to deal with it. Yet they sent Predators into action without adequate deicing capabilities. There were many other oversights like that, indicative of an air force that wasn’t really eager to see UAVs succeed. This could also be seen in who the air force selected to operate the Predator. They used existing pilots of fighters and transports, and made it a temporary assignment. Other services had much more success making it a career opportunity for NCOs. The air force slowly came around to the career angle, and better training for the operators, but the damage was already done.

Reliability issues hurt the Predator where it was most vulnerable, in its ability to stay in the air for a long time. Although the Predator was, in theory, able to stay in the air for over 30 hours, reliability issues generally limited air time to about half that. This also made inflight refueling moot. The geeks wanted to move forward on improving reliability, and introducing inflight refueling, especially for the larger Predator B (or “Reaper”). But the pilot faction was not eager to see the Reaper succeed, because this UAV was built to replace fighter bombers. Normally, a Reaper carried two 500 pound JDAMS and two Hellfire missiles. If reliable enough, and with inflight refueling, a Reaper could stay up for several days. But with all the delays in dealing with reliability issues, it will be years before inflight refueling is worth the effort.

And then there’s weapons support. The Reaper needs a special rack to carry the new 250 pound SDB (Small Diameter Bomb). Right now this will be available in about four years. The air force throws up a lot of smoke in defense of this delay, but the geeks know the real reason why.

The reliability issue works for the pilots faction, because the higher loss rate of UAVs makes them look less effective, on paper, compared to manned fighter-bombers. Thus pushing the purchase of new, and three times as expensive (with better sensors and all that) Reapers, will make manned aircraft look good, if nough of those Reapers have accidents.

Currently, army and marine UAVs operate for many more hours over the battlefield than do air force Predators and Reapers. On average, about a dozen Predator sorties a day are flown in Iraq and Afghanistan. The army flies many more than that with its Hunters, Shadows and Ravens. But noting that only Predator can carry large missiles like Hellfire, the air force is doubling the number of armed Predator sorties, and hustling to get the Reaper into action. The number of UAV crews is being increased from 120 to 160. But the army doesn’t want more aircraft with weapons up there, it just wants more eyes in the sky. It’s information about what the enemy is doing that saves lives on the ground, not armed UAVs.

In the long run, the geeks will win. Other nations, with less money and less influential air force generals who were once pilots, will build more effective and reliable UAVs. At that point, the U.S. will have to listen to the air force geeks, and get more serious about UAVs.

QUOTES FOR THE WEEK"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists somewhere else in the universe is that no one has tried to contact us" - Calvin (and Hobbes)

“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”-Ronald Reagan

"We can all do our part to save the planet by dying." - R.E. Finch (Stupid ecopagan athiests! Their hysterical secular neo-religion sucks!)

“Our cultural environment is Western Civilization. This is who we are. And today, Western Civilization is under siege. We are under attack from Radical Islam – that’s the War on Terrorism. We are under attack from those within the US itself who seek to destroy our traditional culture and our moral values – from those who believe the State is more important than the family or the individual. And we ourselves are acting in a way that will leave our children with a bleak economic future. We need to understand these threats, now, so we can set in place the right policies to lift this siege we are under – to save our country and by doing so to rescue Western Civilization itself.”

Sunday, July 15, 2007

Destiny Or Defeat?There is a very encouraging message circulating on the Internet right now that I want to share with you. It comes from Chaplain Jim Higgins, serving in Balad, Iraq:

“I recently attended a showing of Spiderman 3 here at LSA Anaconda. We have a large auditorioum we use for movies as well as memorial services and other large gatherings. As is the custom back in the states, we stood and snapped to attention when the national anthem began before the main feature. All was going as planned until about three-quarters of the way through the national anthem the music stopped.

“Now, what would happen if this occurred with 1,000 18-22 year-olds back in the states? I imagine there would be hoots, catcalls, laughter, a few rude comments, and everyone would sit down and call for a movie. Of course, that is, if they had stood for the national anthem in the first place. Here, the 1,000 soldiers continued to stand at attention, eyes fixed forward.

“The music started again. The soldiers continued to quietly stand at attention. And again, at the same point, the music stopped. What would you expect to happen? Even here I would imagine laughter as everyone sat down and expected the movie to start.

“Here, you could have heard a pin drop. Every soldier stood at attention. Suddenly there was a lone voice, then a dozen, and quickly the room was filled with the voices of a thousand soldiers:

And the rockets red glare, the bombs bursting in air, Gave proof through the night that our flag was still there. O say does that star-spangled banner yet wave, O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?

“It was the most inspiring moment I have had here in Iraq. I wanted you to know what kind of soldiers are serving you here.”

That doesn’t sound to me like men and women who are fighting a “lost” war, an “illegal” war or an “unjust” war. That doesn’t sound like men and women who are demoralized, who want to give up and are ready to “cut and run.” I’m sure they would love to come home, but I suspect they want even more to guarantee their children and grandchildren will grow up in the “land of the free and the home of the brave.” Our soldiers aren’t worried about the latest poll or the next negative ad. Their fear isn’t losing the next election; it’s losing this war, our country and our civilization! No, I’m sure their voices were strong and full of confidence in the justness of their mission.

Unfortunately, our politicians aren’t so confident. Last night, a majority of the House of Representatives displayed an amazing lack of resolve by voting yet again to begin the retreat from Iraq in 120 days. My friends, what do you think our response would be if we learned of a new tape in which Osama bin Laden warns his fellow jihadists that they can only hold on for a few months? Would we call for a truce, lay down our guns and stop fighting? No, we would press the attack and that is exactly what Al Qaeda is doing. The terrorists know our will is breaking. Every night our “elected representatives” take turns telling them as much on the evening news and by voting again and again to give up. How must this look to the rest of the world?

There is no “balance sheet” the jihadists can point to that suggests they can win this war. They have no state. They have no economy. They have no professional army. They have no navy. They stole our planes to attack us on 9/11. But they do have one thing and it is exactly the one thing that we appear to be lacking: the will to win. Our enemy believes we are weak, fat, lazy and a civilization in decline. Leaving Iraq without victory won’t end the war; it will prove bin Laden right and fuel the fires of jihad. It will betray the vision of John F. Kennedy, proving America is no longer willing to “bear any burden and any price to secure the survival and success of liberty.” It will betray the faith of Ronald Reagan, who saw America not as a defeated country that should co-exist with its communist enemy, but as a shining city upon a hill that could lead the free world. Do we have a rendezvous with destiny or defeat? I remain hopeful so long as America continues to produce young men and women who proudly sing our national anthem and willingly make the sacrifices necessary to preserve our freedom.

Friday, July 13, 2007

Michael Moore might want to take a serious look at illegal immigration when discussing the hideous expense of America's health care system, and here's why:

Traditionally, when people entered the country legally, most did it through Ellis Island. This location was perfect for isolating individuals with diseases and inoculating people wanting to become US citizens. Unfortunately, over 20 million Mexicans have crossed the southern US border in the last 20 years, bringing with them diseases which are now becoming widespread outbreaks all across this country. From tuberculosis to whooping cough, diseases that were once wiped out here are making a stunning comeback. In fact, what prompted me to write this report was my entire family suddenly coming down with Whooping Cough last year, an illness which hasn't been seen in this country in significant numbers in over 50 years. So why the sudden appearance of this disease? The CDC is highly alarmed at the rapidly increasing numbers of these diseases. The actual spread of Whooping Cough is following the immigration patterns of newly arriving Mexicans (see chart below).

The Spread of Whooping Cough

Much more deadly diseases like Hanta virus, bubonic plague, diptheria, flesh eating bacteria (known to come from from Central America), and drug-resistant TB are also following the pattern of arriving immigrants, proving that these illegal aliens are the source of these illnesses. Thousands and thousands of Americans are now being killed by these diseases that illegal aliens are bringing to this country, all because a few Democrats want their votes. In the past, anyone showing signs of illness were quarantined by government officials but now they are allowed to roam freely among the populace of America. We have only been extremely lucky to avoid a major outbreak of plague or disease because the overall population of the United States is quite healthy. However, the costs of treating all these sickness' is becoming unsustainable. And what about inoculation? When illegal aliens put their kids into schools, are those kids inoculated? And if they are inoculated, is the average US taxpayer paying for someone from another country's health care? Apparently so. It seems that these illegal aliens, just by their use of the health care system, are a net drain on America's systems. Here in Denver, there are health care clinics that serve only Mexicans; the staff doesn't speak English and they serve hundreds of people every day (I know, I have watched this clinic several times). They even have a motor home that travels around the area, giving medical support to illegal aliens, all on the American taxpayers dime. The charts below show the pattern of the spreading of disease in the United States in the past ten years; types of diseases are noted.

Hanta Virus

Tuberculosis

I have spoken to numerous illegal aliens here in Denver, and none of them want to "assimilate". They don't want to become citizens, many just want to earn money to send home and in 10-20 years retire back to Mexico, as a millionaire. By the way, this is causing a MASSIVE flow of money out of the United States and into Mexico as illegals send money back to their home country as nest eggs. These remittances are also one of the main reasons why the President of Mexico and all his government officials are fighting any change in US immigration policy. Well over 100 billion dollars is flowing south, to Mexico, every year. Ending or even decreasing this flow is a very bad thing for the Mexican government. Additionally, many of the Mexicans I talked to want to "take back" the land that America supposedly stole from them. The photo below is making the statement that many Mexicans feel:

Actually the land in North America belongs to the native American Indians who still live here today: the Comanche, Apache, Sioux, etc. Most Mexicans are descendants from Spain, a European country like England and Germany. Only around 20% of all Mexicans are native to this continent. Additionally, anyone from North or South America are not originally from these areas anyway; they are all from Asia, they are genetically Mongoloid and are not native to the Americas. In fact, as far as I know, nearly every population group in the world are immigrants to their areas, except for maybe the Egyptians and Chinese. All others have moved to their current locations by mass immigration.

Most Americans do not hate immigrants; we are a nation of immigrants and everyone knows their relatives came here from different places. What Americans really want is legal immigration. We are a nation of laws and we want to remain a nation of laws. Why should one group of people not obey the law while all the others must? Without law, we will have a complete break-down of the country; anarchy. People resent it when they have to follow the law but others do not, and such resentment does not bode well for a civil society.

But the millions of Hispanics who have come to our country in the last several decades – and it’s the Hispanics we’re talking about in this debate, not those from other cultures—are, in fact, two distinct groups. The first group is comprised of “immigrants” just like all the others, who have put the old country behind them and want only to be Americans. They aren’t the problem. Indeed, most Americans welcome them among us, as we have welcomed so many other cultures.

The problem is the second group of Hispanics. They aren’t immigrants – which is what neither the Democratic or Republican leadership seems to understand, or wants to acknowledge. They have come here solely for jobs, which isn’t the same thing at all. (And many of them have come here illegally.) Whether they remain in the U.S. for one year, or ten years – or for the rest of their lives – they don’t conduct themselves like immigrants. Yes, they work hard to put roofs above their heads and food on their tables – and for this we respect them. But they have little interest in learning English themselves, and instead demand that we make it possible for them to function here in Spanish. They put their children in our schools, and don't pay the property taxes to support those schools. They don’t always pay their taxes – or insure their cars.

In short, they aren’t playing by the rules that our families played by when they immigrated to this country. And to ordinary Americans this behavior is deeply – very deeply – offensive. We see it unfolding every day in our communities, and we don’t like it. This is what none of our politicians either understands, or dares to say aloud. Instead, they blather on – and on – about “amnesty” and “border security” without ever coming to grips with what is so visible, and so offensive, to so many of us – namely, all these foreigners among us who aren’t behaving like immigrants.

So, we in America would like an end to this "debate". Close down the illegal alien pipeline to the south and enforce our laws equally and justly. No one wants lawbreakers to roam the country, committing crimes whenever they want. And they do commit crimes; fraud is a felony, stealing someone else's Social Security is a crime, stealing someones' identity is a crime. This happened to my best friend Robyn. Some Hispanic woman in New Jersey stole her identity, bought a $300,000 home in her name (and made no payments), ran up huge bills in her name, and got 4 DUI's (which caused Robyn to lose her drivers insurance, flagging her to the problem). Many everyday Americans are suffering, physically, financially, and emotionally from the massive influx of illegal aliens, all for the purpose of a cheap vote. Even President Bush, who I have supported wholeheartedly, has foolishly ignored his own party to endorse a sweeping (and destructive) immigration policy for America. Hopefully the madness will end soon.

Recipe For MassacreRetired military officer and author Ralph Peters penned a blistering response today to the Washington politicians in both parties who are pushing for a retreat from Iraq, calling them the “cowards on Capitol Hill.” He predicts that if they succeed in forcing a withdrawal, the inevitable result would be “a slaughter of the innocents – so many dead the bodies will never be counted.” He also speculates that Iran will fill the vacuum left by America’s retreat from the Middle East and will effectively take control of Iraq’s southern oil fields.

Peters is far from alone in his analysis. Virtually any military man in Washington will tell you the same. Retired four star General Jack Keane said today that Iran’s operatives are already all over Iraq, providing weapons and advice to literally all of our opponents, whether they are Shiites or Sunni. Iran smells weakness, and you can bet our enemies across the world are picking up the same putrid scent, and likely picking sides. We will be less safe after a retreat, my friends – not more!

Finally, what about the men and women in Baghdad, Fallujah and Anbar Province right now giving everything they have for America? Many of them joined the U.S. military after 9/11 and after the war in Iraq began. Over 3,500 have died and another 25,000 have been wounded. They volunteered for this war because they believed our country was serious about defeating the Islamofascists who attacked us and who right now are planning the next attack on our homeland. This war is not yet won, and it is far from over. Do Reid and Pelosi, Lugar and Voinovich, and the rest of the defeatists even think about what it means to give up and cause the sacrifices of so many to be in vain?

“Anti-War Terrorists”In previous reports, I have told you about the incredibly intolerant “hate speech” that some on the Left have directed toward our young men and women in uniform. As disgusting as signs like “We support our troops when they shoot their officers” are, that is the price we pay for living in a free society. Our soldiers make incredible sacrifices – leaving loved ones for long periods of time – and must fight and serve under intense conditions against a brutal and vicious enemy, while adhering to the standards of our civilized society. When a few break the rules, it’s front page news for weeks, and they are prosecuted by our government.

But what happens when anti-war activism turns violent? If a soldier were gunned down by an anti-war protestor, would that make the front page? Of course not, and I bet you have never heard of Airman Jonathan Schrieken. I had not until I read a column today by Michelle Malkin in the New York Post. Schrieken was shot in the chest at point blank range on the Fourth of July by an individual who, according to police, was “suffering from mental-health problems.” That may well be true, but it isn’t the full story. The assailant, Matthew Marren, who committed suicide after he shot Schrieken, reportedly left notes full of hatred for the government and the U.S. military, and expressed how he “wanted to go out making a statement.” Instead of writing a letter to the editor or casting a ballot, it appears as though Marren made his “statement” by shooting a soldier on the Fourth of July. Beyond a few articles in local papers, this story hasn’t been touched by Big Media, but, as Malkin notes, just imagine if the scenario were reversed: “What if a soldier had attempted to murder a peace activist over the holidays in order to make a statement?”

The “good news” in this story is that Jonathan Schrieken was not killed and is recovering. But the bad news is that whatever “mental-health problems” Marren was suffering from appear to have infected whole swaths of anti-war radicals, and even young congressional interns, as you may recall, who seem to have trouble telling the good guys from the bad guys. Our soldiers fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq are the good guys who have liberated millions from the tyranny of the Taliban and from the “Butcher of Baghdad.” Today, they are doing their best to defeat an enemy that hides in places of worship, beheads its captives, turns children into human bombs and that has vowed to bring more death and destruction to our shores. May God give them strength and courage, keep them safe and bless their families for the sacrifices they have made!

Thursday, July 12, 2007

Airport Security at DIASince the recent attempt to blow up the fuel depot and airport in New York last month I have been pondering whether I should make this post and now, with ding-bat DHS Secretary Chertoff's recent statement about his "gut feeling" that terrorists will try and attack the USA again during this summer, I have decided to go ahead with this information about Denver International Airports' serious lack of security.

Perimeter SecurityI have worked out at DIA for over a year and the lack of security at one of America's major airports is appalling. First off, the morons running DIA decided to let un-armed hospital security guard all the main gates leading onto the airfield. This security company, known as HSS, employs a large number of elderly, foreign, and female security guards who can be easily overwhelmed without anyone knowing about it. Heck, they don't even make hourly checks by radio or phone to see if the guard shack has been attacked and taken over by terrorists. Secondly, many of these guards do not speak English very well; sometimes not at all. This is apparently an effort to fulfill some kind of quota system within the security company. Also, these guards are known to be bribable: many take food and other items from people asking to get onto the airfield. I have seem them to this many times and heard of it from other security guards as a standard practice, even though the company has now apparently banned such "gifts". Also, large passenger buses enter the airport runways without being inspected. The process is automated, with bus drivers swiping a card to gain access. It would be exceptionally easy to take one of these bus drivers hostage and drive a large passenger bus right into the side of a fully-loaded airplane. Also, just standing outside Gate 1 it would be easy to fire guns and even throw Molotov cocktails into taxiing airplanes, which would surely be destroyed by such an action.

Additionally, the area near the cargo ramp where large numbers of FedEx and UPS airplanes load and unload has no fence; you can just walk right onto the airfield. This site is located right next to the yard where the company I used to work for is located. After 9/11 it is shocking that airport security at DIA is so poor that anyone could just walk right onto the airfield. The cargo ramp area has numerous cargo planes just sitting on the tarmac and one of my greatest fears is for terrorists to grab one of these cargo planes and ram them into nuclear power plants. Such an attack would could massive fear all across the country, especially if the containment building was breached by the cargo airplane (a very real possibility) and highly radioactive debris were carried downwind from the facility.

Tank FarmThe main tank farm for DIA is located just to the north of the airport and is only secured by a few cameras. I do not know if the fuel lines to the tank farm are actually connected to DIA by running in underground pipes, but destroying this facility could be easily done by throwing Molotov cocktails out of your vehicle as you drive down the adjacent road. The fear of igniting the fuel farm in New York and having it spread to the main airport was what caused the biggest amount of fear to those that worked there.

AirplanesDIA has very poor security at the ends of the runways. Anyone with a hand-held surface-to-air missile(SAM) or even a handgun or rifle could bring down plane after plane as they took off, especially from the runway that points north of DIA proper. The only thing warning people away from the area is a sign saying that the region was restricted.

Overall, Denver International Airport is not a secured facility. Anyone can drive up to the curb-side baggage area and detonate a car bomb, which would certainly bring down the entire five-story section of that area. The gate guards and un-armed and mostly elderly, easily overcome by an half-hearted attempt to attack the airport. The cargo planes are easily accessible to anyone who wants to just walk onto the airfield. Buses can be used to ram airplanes loaded with people. The complete picture of DIA shows a real lack in security, with most of the efforts taking place inside the terminal itself. Hopefully DIA has a SWAT team on emergency stand-by but I have never seen such training in the one and a half years I was out there, working on the runways. When traveling, it might be best to avoid DIA and go help us all of the terrorists ever get their hands on a few cargo airplanes. While security at most nuclear reactors is tight, trying to stop a 100 ton airplane moving at 500mph is almost impossible in the last few seconds before impact.

No Fly Zones in USA (nuclear reactors)

U.S. Nukes In Europe Going, But Not GoneWithout any official announcement, the United States appears to have reduced its once enormous nuclear weapons stockpile still further. An administrative document showing that there would no longer be nuclear weapons inspections at Ramstein airbase, means that the U.S. no longer stores nuclear weapons there. These bombs were intended for the use by German aircraft, in the event of a major war with, well, there don’t seem to be any suitably scary enemies available any more. There are still apparently about 300 American nuclear weapons stored in Europe, all of them believed to be 1960s era B61 nuclear weapons, configured as a half ton bomb that can be carried by most U.S., and some European, fighter-bombers.

Some 3,200 B61s were built since the design went into service in the mid-1960s, and about half of those remain available for use. Some are being refurbished, so they will good for another two decades. The basic B61 nuclear bomb weighs 700 pounds, is 330mm in diameter and about twelve feet long. Those stored in Europe, and these are not being refurbished, meaning that those withdrawn are probably approaching the end of their shelf life. Without the refurb, all these older warheads will be useless in less than a decade. Most B61 warheads were variable yield, and could be set to provide an explosion ranging from less than a kiloton, to over 300 kilotons.

During the early 1970s, the United States had over 7,000 nuclear warheads stored in Europe, most of them 8 inch and 155mm artillery shells. This was in the belief that, if the Russians, and their Warsaw Pact allies, invaded Western Europe, they would do so using these “tactical” (a yield of under 100 kilotons) nuclear weapons. Plans were drawn up to use hundreds of these warheads in battles with the invading Russians. But eventually, it was realized that such use would destroy Western Europe, and probably lead to a full scale nuclear war that would devastate the planet. So, by the end of the Cold War in 1990, there were only about 4,000 U.S. nukes left in Europe. By the end of the 1990s, there were only about 500 left. Most of these were for the use of NATO allies. During the Cold War, European nations were to be provided with American nuclear weapons, in the event of a major war. Most of these agreements are still in effect.

Taiwan Finally Buys P-3sAfter six years of political maneuvering, the Taiwanese legislature has approved the purchase of twelve U.S. P-3C maritime patrol (and anti-submarine) aircraft, as well as updates for its Patriot anti-missile systems. Since 2001, the United States has been offering Taiwan an $18 billion package of weapons, including 66 F-16s. But Taiwanese politics has prevented the legislature from accepting the offer. The problem is that, in the last ten years, the native Taiwanese have dethroned the Nationalist Party, which took control of Taiwan in 1948, after losing control of China to the communists. The Nationalists were always a minority on Taiwan, and the native Taiwanese resented it, even though many joined the Nationalist party. But in the 1990s, they lost their absolute control of the government, as the Nationalists allowed democracy to take over completely.

The Taiwanese politicians were for independence from China, and in response, the Nationalists called for eventual merger with China. For half a century the Nationalists had planned for eventually for retaking control of China, but for most of that period, no one seriously believed the communists would be ousted. Some Nationalists now believe that democracy will eventually depose the Chinese Communists. At that point, a merger of Taiwan and China would make the Nationalists a major player in Chinese politics once more. Many Taiwanese will accept this as a suitable Plan B, but for the moment, most Taiwanese want to remain independent. Taiwanese also do not want to provoke China into attacking Taiwan. As part of that policy, the Nationalists have used their control of the legislature to block buying the U.S. weapons. But the pro-independence politicians, including the president of Taiwan, made the P-3C purchase appear as a purely defensive move, to insure China does not try to blockade Taiwan (whose prosperity, and very survival, is dependent on access to the sea.)

Japan vs ChinaIn an effort to underscore its claim to a larger exclusive economic zone in the South China Sea, Japan has begun to transplant coral to a disputed cluster of rocks in the body of water. The Times of London reports that Japan has already spent more that $300 million to build huge cement barriers encircling the geological formation, which is cumulatively known as the Okinotorishima, or "remote bird islands." China, however, disputes the Japanese claim - not because of conflicting territorial assertions, but because it claims that the Okinotorishima are merely rocks, not islands.

The difference matters a great deal. Exclusive economic zones typically extend 200 miles from a country’s territorial waters, and provide that nation with preferential access to minerals, energy and fishing rights there. If the formation is deemed to be islands, therefore, Japan would be in a preferential position to exploit resources and prevent Chinese exploration over a wider swath of the Sea. Beijing, for its part, is interested in constricting Japan’s control for its own reasons. "China wants freely to investigate its seabed for submarine operations in case of military conflict involving Taiwan," says international relations scholar Yukie Yoshikawa.

Tuesday, July 10, 2007

Every time you squeeze the trigger on the gas pump, you are putting money into the pockets of terrorists.

Trace back the snaking hose, past the pump and the oil refinery, and you will find nearly two dozen oil kingdoms—all of which, to some degree or another, fund al Qaeda, Hezbollah, Hamas and other jihadi groups.

With the exception of a few mature Western democracies like Canada, Norway and the United States, writes New York Times columnist Tom Friedman, “the price of oil and the path of freedom run in opposite directions.”

If the world did not buy their oil, the sheikhs couldn’t give terrorists enough money for a car to put a car bomb in.

So the key strategic question is: Can we sever the link between oil and al Qaeda?

Wrestling with the issue in a private room at the Four Seasons Restaurant recently was former CIA director James Woolsey, former Reagan Administration Education Secretary Bill Bennett, CNN anchor Lou Dobbs, and Wall Street Journal editorial writer Stephen Moore. The forum was the Hudson Institute’s Briefing Series, the best ticket for high-end discussion in New York. The audience is as interesting as the guests: hedge-fund managers, executives, journalists, scholars and socialites.

The Saudis account for 1% of planet’s Muslims, but provide 90% of the funding for Islamic institutions and charities world-wide. In keeping with Saudi Arabia’s official version of Islam, the kingdom’s billions flow to mosques and charities that espouse a Wahabi doctrine.

“When the Wahabis teach their doctrine, they are teaching al Qaeda’s doctrine,” Woolsey said. “There is no substantial difference between al Qaeda’s doctrine and the Wahabi doctrine.”

Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, Saudi-funded missionaries have trekked deep into Central Asia, sub-Saharan Africa, Southeast Asia, the Balkans and into the neighborhood mosques of Western Europe. Every place the new missionaries of Islam brought their strict creed—with an unique emphasis on jihad—terror attacks have followed.

Other oil baron nations have followed the Saudi pattern.

Of the ten nations with the largest proven oil reserves, the U.S. is number ten. The other nine are among the 40 worst nations in terms of human rights, according to Freedom House. Torture, beheadings, denial of the rights of women and ethnic minorities and so on. And, of course, support for terrorists.

For too long, we have been paralyzed with fear that the Arabs would turn off the oil spigot.

We feel that the oil barons have an Achilles’ heel: terrorists rely on rulers who only have one source of wealth and power—oil. Minus oil, the total value of the non-petroleum exports of the 22 members of the Arab League plus Iran is less than the exports of Finland. Without oil, the main exports of the Near East would be carpets, dates and honey.

How can we get there? Let’s start with transportation. The U.S. Air Force gulps down 70% of all oil consumed by America, mostly jet fuel. (Those who argue that Iraq is a war for oil have it backwards: we use more oil fighting in Iraq than we could ever hope to import from it.)

The U.S. uses oil and its byproducts for 97% of its transportation needs. So any solution starts with cars.

One answer, suggested by Woolsey, is ethanol from farm products. He cited estimates by the National Energy Policy Commission that just 7% of U.S. farmland could produce enough biomass to provide the fuel needed for all U.S. passenger vehicles. The production costs for cellulosic ethanol are headed downward toward around 70 cents per gallon, he said.

Another realistic option: hybrid vehicles. They usebattery power for short trips (20 miles or less) and gasoline for long hauls. Users would charge their cars overnight by plugging in an extension cord an ordinary 110-volt socked in their garage

Utilities are warming to the idea because plug-in hybrids would open a new market for them: selling off-peak power at night.

Wouldn’t that drive up electricity prices or force us to build more power plants? Not for a very long time. Hybrid plug-ins use off-peak nighttime power—the electricity now consumed by bars, hospitals and insomniacs. The Department of Energy’s Pacific Northwest National Laboratory estimates that adopting plug-ins will not create a need for new base-load electricity generation plants until plug-ins make up more than 84% of the nation’s 220 million cars and trucks.

Further, Woolsey contends, those plug-in cars that are left connected to an electrical socket after they are fully charged (most U.S. cars are parked over 20 hours a day) can provide electricity from their batteries back to the grid.

Woolsey envisions a world in super fuel-efficient vehicles. “A 50 mpg hybrid, once it becomes a plug-in, will likely get over 100 mpg.”

If we didn’t buy that oil, wouldn’t the Chinese just buy that much more oil? asks former Education Secretary and radio-talk show host Bill Bennett. China’s appetite for oil is growing with its economy. And therefore, wouldn’t the money still flow into purses of the oil barons?

Both Woolsey and Dobbs offer fascinating answers.

Any energy-saving technology developed by the West would be quickly adopted by China and other developing nations, Woolsey contends. As a result, world demand for oil would slow as more nations switch to new vehicles.

China also has a strategic reason to wean itself from Arab oil, the former CIA director said. The Chinese are fully aware that they are no match for the U.S. Navy in Indian Ocean or the South China Sea. If crisis over Taiwan exploded, the U.S. Navy could block oil tankers bound for mainland China—choking both its economy and its war machine.

And China has an economic incentive to usher in the post-gasoline age. Batteries for electric cars are already made in China.

You have to feel sorry for David Petraeus. The commander of the multinational force in Iraq already has his hands full overseeing the "surge." Now he needs to deal with another, equally pressing problem. According to Iraqi officials, Turkey has mobilized some 140,000 soldiers along its common border with Iraq, in a maneuver that many see as a prelude to some sort of military confrontation between the two countries.

The reason has everything to do with Ankara's threat calculus. Today, Turkish officials and analysts alike are preoccupied with four interlocking strategic fronts. The first is the country's southeast, where Turkey's military continues its long-running struggle against the separatists of the radical Kurdish Workers Party (PKK). The second lies across the border in northern Iraq, where officials say Kurdish rebels are operating with the knowledge -- and possibly even the tacit backing -- of Massoud Barzani's Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). The third and fourth are the sizeable Kurdish enclaves in Syria and Iran -- communities that officials in Ankara fear could similarly become outposts for anti-Turkish activity.

Washington has been slow to grasp the gravity of this threat, and even slower to address it. Until quite recently, the Bush administration brushed aside Turkish appeals for an expansion of the war on terror to include Kurdish terrorism, preferring to focus solely on the threat of al Qaeda and its affiliates. Worse, persistent talk in Washington of Iraqi "federalism" or "soft partition" sent shockwaves through officials in Ankara, who believe that the emergence of an independent "Kurdistan" could encourage neighboring Kurdish enclaves to seek self-determination, likely peeling away Turkish territory.

Only last year, in a belated response to Ankara's urgings, did the administration appoint a special envoy for combating the PKK. The post, as well as the credentials of the envoy -- Gen. Joseph Ralston, a former vice-chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff -- were viewed in Turkey as a long-overdue sign of seriousness. But, by all accounts, bilateral progress has been slow and Mr. Ralston's efforts stymied by bureaucracy. The Beltway debate over Iraq, meanwhile, has heightened Turkish fears that they soon could be forced to face an expanded insurgent threat on their own.

All of which has spurred Ankara to action. In recent days, observers say, the Turkish government has launched a "great mobilization" that has positioned more than a quarter of its half-million-strong army in southeastern Turkey, awaiting orders for a cross-border operation. Such an incursion could be catastrophic. The quasi-autonomous government of "Iraqi Kurdistan" has made clear that it is ready and able to repulse a Turkish invasion. The U.S., meanwhile, has hinted that it would be obliged to defend and assist Iraqi forces in the event of such a conflict. Thus a Turkish raid could spark a war between a NATO member state and the U.S.-led Coalition.

Up until now, Ankara has appeared to understand the danger. Over the past several weeks, its military created a number of "temporary security zones" on the Iraqi border to interdict cross-border terrorist activities. But Turkish officials have made perfectly clear that this step is not a permanent solution to their security problem.

Fortunately, an opportunity to avert a crisis exists. Back in the spring of 2002, in an effort to assist Georgia in its fight against terrorism, the Pentagon launched the Georgia Train and Equip Program (GTEP) -- a bilateral military training initiative intended to enhance the former Soviet republic's counterterrorism, border security and intelligence capabilities. Practically, GTEP served as a useful capacity-building exercise, helping Tbilisi consolidate control over inhospitable terrain and expand the effectiveness of its forces. Politically, however, GTEP was much more; by increasing Georgia's competence to combat terrorism within its own borders, it eliminated a potential pretext for Russian imperialism. By 2004, the 20-month program had attained tangible results, simultaneously bolstering Tbilisi's anti-terror abilities and reducing the reasons for Russian intrusion.

If implemented quickly, the same model could reap benefits in northern Iraq. Despite its virtual political autonomy, the KRG is not an independent entity. It is beholden to the Iraqi central government, and to the Coalition, which now has greater authority pursuant to a May 30 security agreement signed by Mr. Barzani and U.S. commanders. Both now need to seize the initiative to create an institutional mechanism capable of defending Turkey from cross-border attack.

Of late, Baghdad has begun to show welcome signs of responsibility on this score. In early June, after months of dialogue with Turkish officials, Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki officially signaled his intent to outlaw the activities of the PKK. Mr. Maliki and company will need to go beyond mere rhetoric, however, and immediately formulate a concrete plan for containing the activities of Kurdish insurgents in northern Iraq. For its part, the Coalition must throw its weight behind a serious plan for northern Iraq, one that addresses Turkey's security concerns in a real and tangible way.

Anything less, and the Iraqi insurgency could become the least of Gen. Petraeus's problems.

Saturday, July 07, 2007

Japan to Shoot Down Missiles Fired at USAIn a stunning reversal of nearly 60 years of Japanese policy, the Prime Minister of Japan (Shinzo Abe) has decided to abandon his country's anti-military stance and support the United States against missile attack. In light of the deteriorating situation in East Asia (North Korea missile and nuclear tests and the Chinese-Japanese row over gas fields in the Ryukyu Islands, PM Abe stated this week "If our ally, the United States, is seriously damaged by a ballistic missile, it will undoubtedly have a severe impact on our country's own defense." Abe told his advisers at the outset of a meeting early this week in Tokyo. Since the end of World War 2 and the American occupation of post-war Japan, that nation was forced to sign a constitution disavowing warfare, which actually dramatically helped Japan become the economic and techo-colossus it is today. Instead of diverting money into buying weaponry, Japan has relied on the USA to defend it for decades. However, it is becoming more and more clear to the leading governmental technocrats in Tokyo that the United States is needing more and more help around the world and the last two Japanese Prime Ministers preceeding Abe have openly discussed revoking the non-war clause in their constitution. Although many in Japan are pacifists, the North Korean missile launches several years ago directly over Honshu shocked many Japanese, and missile defense talks with US military officials were initiated immediately afterwards. Japan has a technically robust economy that could greatly help the US in developing missile defenses, especially in the area of laser weaponry. Japan currently has cutting-edge advances in robotics and electronics and also hosts American military bases in their country from the war 60 years ago. This new stance that Abe is taking is revolutionary for Japan and China and North Korea are sure to object.

Japan and the United States have been building up a shield against missile attacks since North Korea lobbed a long-range missile over Japan's main island and into the Pacific in 1998. On Thursday, Prime Minister Abe called for a "severe" international response to North Korea's launch of several short-range missiles into the Sea of Japan (East Sea) a day earlier. The members are widely seen as close to Abe who has also been seeking to revise the constitution itself as part of his drive to build an assertive nation proud of its history despite its militarist past. There were also suggestions that missiles targeted at Australia and other allies should also be intercepted, Abe was quoted as saying. Earlier this year Shinzo Abe, who has been vying for stronger military ties with the Pentagon since his election as premier in September 2006, used his Liberal Democratic Party's parliamentary majority to push for a national referendum on the broader use of the Japanese military. Japan's determination to boost its missile defenses was strengthened after Pyongyang conducted a series of ballistic missile tests in July 2006, and an underground nuclear test explosion three months later. By 2011, Japan plans to deploy a two-tier missile shield combining sea and land-based systems. The U.S. SM-3 interceptor missiles, to be deployed on five Aegis-class destroyers in the Japanese Navy, are designed to intercept incoming missiles in mid-trajectory, while the U.S. Patriot PAC-3 systems, deployed at four ground-to-air missile units, are set to shoot down missiles before they hit the ground.

I believe that America is finally finding out who its' friends really are: Japan, England, and Israel.

Terrorist Cash Crunch Causes Change in StrategyThe Taliban announced a new strategy, which involves sending assassins and suicide bombers after government officials and foreign troops. There will be less emphasis on have large numbers of armed Taliban out and about (where they are spotted from the air, and attacked). This new tactic was opposed by the late Taliban senior combat commander, Mullah Dadullah, as it meant giving up trying to control parts of the country. To do that, you need large numbers of armed Taliban to go out and terrorize heavily armed villages and tribal leaders. Even though the Taliban pay their gunmen twice, or more, than soldiers or policemen, the high loss rate has made recruiting difficult. Al Qaeda, which is desperate for cash, is willing to help with Taliban suicide bombing operations. The suicide bombers usually work for free, so this cost cutting measure avoids a collapse of the Taliban finances. While the alliance with the drug gangs brings in lots of cash, much of it gets diverted to friends and family of Taliban leaders. This is, after all, still Afghanistan, and that's the way things work here. Family comes first.

The government in Afghanistan is beginning to realize that the Taliban and drug gangs have merged into a single organization in many parts of the country. As a result, the government is considering changing its policy, and asking foreign troops to go after drug targets, including poppy crops. One major reason for this is that Afghan troops and police are much easier to bribe. Once a police or army commander has taken a bribe, they often stay on the dark side. Despite that, so far this year, soldiers and police have destroyed over 60,000 acres of poppy crops, which is two-thirds more than all of last year. But there are nearly half a million acres of poppies growing in the country.

Secretary Chertoff Loses all CredibilityFor the last several weeks I have been astonished by the Bush Administrations' stupid policy on immigration, which goes directly against what the vast majority of US citizens want. My support for Bush Jr. has sunk to new lows when his Department of Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff said on national television last week that he believed "that vigilant citizens who report on immigration law breakers are like the Gestapo". Is that a joke? The full transcript of what the DHSsecretary has been doing and saying for the last several weeks is below and is a good read (thanks Michelle Malkin!):

Hi, I'm Michelle Malkin reporting for Bill O'Reilly tonight. Thanks for watching us. There have been many new developments today in the British terror plot. And we'll get to that in a moment. But first, Michael Chertoff and the Department of Homeland Insecurity -- that's the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." For the second time, DHS chief Michael Chertoff has declined "The Factor's" invitation to appear with me tonight to discuss immigration and national security. What is it, my breath? In all seriousness, Chertoff's shrinking credibility is no laughing matter. Actions have consequences. And Chertoff's embarrassing crusade for the failedshamnesty bill has greatly damaged his credibility at a critical time.

The American people have little faith in the government's ability to enforce our immigration laws and put national security first. We won't forget the vicious smear campaign that Chertoff waged against principal deponents of the Bush-Kennedy immigration disaster. We won't forget that while global jihad marched on, Secretary Chertoff was more worried about the availability of cheap lettuce pickers than about terrorist operatives slipping past our air, land, and sea borders. Now in the wake of last week's two attempted terrorist car bombings in London and Glasgow, Chertoff reassures us that he's got everything under control in the U.S. He downplayed reports of an imminent al Qaeda attack, while encouraging the public to be vigilant and report any suspicious activities to authorities.

Chertoff aligned himself with open borders crusader Teddy Kennedy and others who believe that vigilant citizens who report on immigration law breakers are like the Gestapo. The White House and Chertoff aren't lifting a finger to release $4.4 billion in emergency border security funds that they wanted to use to bribe senators to vote for the failed amnesty bill. So how much credibility does Chertoff have on maintaining vigilance against terrorists during this season of heightened alert? Nada.And that's the "memo."

These statements and efforts by Chertoff have left the man without any credibility at all. How can anyone support a government official who is so completely out of touch with reality. President Bush should remove Chertoff immediately and replace him with someone who has a better understanding of what the American peoplewant and need. These guys are supposed to be responding to our citizens needs, not running roughshod over them.

Those Crazy Russians!Russia has dropped its threat to aim nuclear weapons at European cities “in an abrupt change of tactics after weeks of Cold War-style brinkmanship,” the Telegraph reports. While President Putin said on June 4th that Russia would find “new targets” in Europe in response to the deployment of U.S. missile defenses in eastern Europe, Putin’s spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, told the British newspaper: “We were not talking about retargeting missiles at European cities or other targets. What was meant was that if retargeting took place, it would only be the sites [in Poland and the Czech Republic] that would be targeted.” Likewise, First Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov said that only the ABM installations in Poland and the Czech Republic would be targeted.

Florida Sheriff uses Clever Strategy to Locate IllegalsIn Panama City Beach, FL, Sheriff Frank McKeithen developed an easy way to distinguish between illegal and legal workers at construction sites: illegals run from the police while legal workers keep working. McKeithen instructs his deputies to simply drive to construction sites that investigators believe hire illegals. The workers who do not have legal status will usually run when the deputies arrive, and in process of running from the site, will break laws such as speeding, loitering, or trespassing on private property. After the police arrest the illegals for other charges, they then report the potential illegal aliens to US immigration authorities. "It's not wrong for them to run, but it's not wrong for us to chase them either," said Sheriff Frank McKeithen.

Wednesday, July 04, 2007

A Message From The Citizens Of The 'Great Satan' To The Rest Of The World by John Hawkins

Acording to some non-American newspapers, the United States is responsible for most of the pollution in the world. We're also to blame for floods in Europe, earthquakes in Afghanistan, and if global warming ever actually happens that'll be our fault as well for not signing up for the totally ineffective Kyoto protocol.

We're regularly denounced at the UN for not signing treaties that would have a larger negative impact on us than any other nation. We're accused of wanting to be "above the law" for not recognizing the authority of an international criminal court treaty that we have not ratified and have "unsigned."

Japan and South Korea resent the soldiers we've had in their nations for decades to defend them from their enemies. African leaders denounce America for not giving them enough aid even as their hands are stretched out asking for more. European leaders look down their noses at Americans despite the fact that we came to their rescue multiple times in the last century.

9/11 was even our fault because we made Osama Bin Laden angry by keeping our infidel soldiers on the "holy sand" of Saudi Arabia to keep fellow Muslim Saddam Hussein from invading. We're constantly told that we have to convince the "Muslim street" that we're not infidel crusaders who want to continue a centuries old fight with them that ended before the US even became a nation. After more than a decade of trying to make peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians, the Palestinians had a party in the street when their heroes in Al-Queda murdered almost 3,000 Americans.

Well the citizens of the "hyperpower", "imperialist hegemony", "Great Satan" or whatever else you want to call us are starting to weary of being the whipping boy for the rest of the planet. In particular, a few things really grind on our nerves.

- The leaders of African nations who've hopelessly wrecked their countries complaining that we don't give them enough money. Maybe if they spent a little more time and effort improving the lives of their citizens and a little less time looking for Western money to sock away in their Swiss bank accounts everyone would be better off.

- European leaders who criticize America to score points with the lefties back home. They might want to start thinking about whether damaging their nation's relationship with the US is more important than getting a few extra votes from the anti-American crowd in their next election.

- European government officials, columnists, etc, who act as if the United States is the focus of evil in the modern world. Between WW1, WW2, the Marshall Plan, and the Cold War we've been pretty good to Europe over the last century or so and treating us like we're some sort of global menace after all of that is ingratitude of the worst sort.

- Europeans who decry America's use of force to protect its own citizens from terrorists, but who had no such issues with getting American help to liberate European nations and protect European citizens from harm.

- Nations that sit on the sidelines and carp about how the United States is getting in the way of their unrealistic and utopian version of the way the world works. It's very easy to complain when other nations take all the risks while your nation reaps the rewards for their actions.

- People who whine that America looks out for its own interests as if that's not the case for every single nation in the world.

- Any representative of the Saudi government who complains about anything having to do with the US. Considering that we saved Saudi Arabia from Iraq in the Gulf War we had reason to expect a little gratitude. They repaid us by setting up anti-US schools and mosques across the world, by supplying 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers, and by refusing to let us use our military bases on their soil for an Iraqi invasion. I think we've heard enough from the Saudis to last about the next 50 years.

- Mouthpieces for Middle-Eastern dictators who complain about bad press in the US moments before they shill for terrorist supporting nations.

- Out of touch United Nations bureaucrats who try to foist their social science experiments on the whole world in general and the US in particular. The UN may view itself as some sort of 'world government' but we view them as a bunch of bumbling incompetents who have no authority to tell us to do anything.

IN CONGRESS, JULY 4, 1776The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of AmericaBy Moe Lane

When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. — Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

Monday, July 02, 2007

Al Gore and his environmental "alarms" are lies. Global warming threats ought to be studied and mitigated, and they should not be deliberately exaggerated as a means of building support for a desired political position. Many of the assertions Gore makes in his movie, ''An Inconvenient Truth,'' have been refuted by science, both before and after he made them. Gore can show sincerity in his plea for scientific honesty by publicly acknowledging where science has rebutted his claims.

Himalayan GlaciersFor example, Gore claims that Himalayan glaciers are shrinking and global warming is to blame. Yet the September 2006 issue of the American Meteorological Society's Journal of Climate reported, "Glaciers are growing in the Himalayan Mountains, confounding global warming alarmists who recently claimed the glaciers were shrinking and that global warming was to blame."

Mt. KilimanjaroGore claims the snowcap atop Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro is shrinking and that global warming is to blame. Yet according to the November 23, 2003, issue of Nature magazine, "Although it's tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountain's foothills is the more likely culprit. Without the forests' humidity, previously moisture-laden winds blew dry. No longer replenished with water, the ice is evaporating in the strong equatorial sunshine."

More Tornadoes?Gore claims global warming is causing more tornadoes. Yet the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stated in February that there has been no scientific link established between global warming and tornadoes.

More Hurricanes?Gore claims global warming is causing more frequent and severe hurricanes. However, hurricane expert Chris Landsea published a study on May 1 documenting that hurricane activity is no higher now than in decades past. Hurricane expert William Gray reported just a few days earlier, on April 27, that the number of major hurricanes making landfall on the U.S. Atlantic coast has declined in the past 40 years. Hurricane scientists reported in the April 18 Geophysical Research Letters that global warming enhances wind shear, which will prevent a significant increase in future hurricane activity.

AfricaGore claims global warming is causing an expansion of African deserts. However, the Sept. 16, 2002, issue of New Scientist reports, "Africa's deserts are in 'spectacular' retreat . . . making farming viable again in what were some of the most arid parts of Africa."

GreenlandGore argues Greenland is in rapid meltdown, and that this threatens to raise sea levels by 20 feet. But according to a 2005 study in the Journal of Glaciology, "the Greenland ice sheet is thinning at the margins and growing inland, with a small overall mass gain." In late 2006, researchers at the Danish Meteorological Institute reported that the past two decades were the coldest for Greenland since the 1910s.

AntarticaGore claims the Antarctic ice sheet is melting because of global warming. Yet the Jan. 14, 2002, issue of Nature magazine reported Antarctica as a whole has been dramatically cooling for decades. More recently, scientists reported in the September 2006 issue of the British journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society Series A: Mathematical, Physical, and Engineering Sciences, that satellite measurements of the Antarctic ice sheet showed significant growth between 1992 and 2003. And the U.N. Climate Change panel reported in February 2007 that Antarctica is unlikely to lose any ice mass during the remainder of the century.

Subscribe To

About the Blog and Me

I am 47 years old, living in the Pacific Northwest. I grew up in Kennewick, Boise, and Coeur d'Alene, Idaho. I have lived in every major US city. I am a gunsmith, artist, writer, musician, farmer, ordained minister, and political blogger. Former truck driver, shrimper, logger, and Navy guy.

Damon's Favorite Quotes

The third-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the majority. The second-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking with the minority. The first-rate mind is only happy when it is thinking.

“When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty.” Thomas Jefferson.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for a temporary convenience deserve neither. Ben Franklin

The heart of the wise inclines to the Right, but the heart of the fool to the Left. Ecclesiastes 10:2 (the Bible)

I didn't claw my way to the top of the food chain to eat vegetables. Damon

My beliefs are born from pain, not politics. Damon

While all ideas have a right to be heard, none has an automatic right to be respected. Pat Buchanan

Since the 1980s there has been a great increase in the right to behave badly and an equal decrease in the freedom to behave normally

When you lose, don't lose the lesson.

If you need to bring in a business partner, make sure your partner brings along some money.

Remember that what's right isn't always popular, and what is popular isn't always right.

Politics is too important to be left to the politicians.

Life is 10% what happens to you and 90% how you react to it. Coach Lou Holtz

If you don't stand for something, you'll fall for anything. Unknown Author

One man with courage is a majority. Andrew Jackson

No one can make you feel inferior without your consent. Eleanor Roosevelt

It's not hard to make decisions when you know what your values are. Roy Disney

Choose a job you love, and you will never have to work a day in your life. Confucious